County of Herefordshire District Council, R (on the application of) v Wiles

A criminal prosecution may be stayed for abuse of process where a fair trial has become impossible, or where trying the case would offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety. The jurisdiction must be exercised carefully and sparingly. Disclosure failures do not automatically justify a stay. The court must identify the actual prejudice and consider whether the trial process, including an adjournment, can cure it. A magistrates’ court cannot use the abuse jurisdiction as a disciplinary response to prosecutorial delay or inadequate disclosure.

The Council appealed by way of case stated against the magistrates’ decision to dismiss proceedings against the respondent for alleged failure promptly to notify changes affecting her entitlement to benefit. The respondent had sought disclosure, including access to electronic files, and complained that disclosure was substantially incomplete until shortly before trial.

The magistrates concluded that the delay was unjustifiable and prejudicial, and stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process. The issue was whether that conclusion was legally open on the facts stated.

1. The appeal succeeded. The magistrates’ decision was reversed under section 28 of the Supreme Court Act, and the case was remitted to a differently constituted bench.
2. The abuse jurisdiction has two limbs. A stay may be justified where it will be impossible to give the accused a fair trial, usually because of delay, or where it would offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety to try the accused in the circumstances. The jurisdiction is exceptional and is not a disciplinary jurisdiction.
3. The magistrates had not expressly found that the respondent’s prejudice was so serious that no fair trial could be held. That conclusion was not available on the facts. Any difficulty arising from the late disclosure could have been addressed by the trial process, including an adjournment if necessary.
4. The magistrates also failed to identify the relevant prejudice. Their reasoning concerned delay and alleged non-compliance with disclosure obligations, rather than conduct which offended the court’s sense of justice and propriety. The evidence did not warrant a stay on the grounds identified.
5. The answers to the stated questions were therefore negative. The decision did not prevent a differently constituted bench from considering the matter afresh.

The respondent applied to the magistrates for a stay of criminal proceedings on abuse of process grounds. The magistrates dismissed the case. The Council appealed by way of case stated to the Administrative Court, which reversed the decision and remitted the matter to a differently constituted bench.